2006 Archives - Thomas More Law Center

Sixth Circuit Hears Oral Argument in Case of Lengthy Police Detention of Pro-life Demonstrators
Tue, Dec 5, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI — Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, Ohio, heard oral argument in a case involving a three-hour police detention of law-abiding, pro-life demonstrators, who were detained because they were “anti-abortion.”

The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, presented oral argument on behalf of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc., a California-based, pro-life organization.

The organization claims that its constitutional rights were violated during the lengthy police detention that occurred on June 10, 2002, in Ohio. Thirteen officers, including officers from the City of Springboro, Clearcreek Township and the FBI, were involved.

Robert Muise, trial counsel for the Law Center, argued that the lengthy detention – so that the FBI could “gather intelligence” on the pro-life demonstrators – violated the demonstrators’ Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable police searches and seizures. He further argued that the police violated the demonstrators’ First Amendment rights by targeting them for unwarranted treatment because they were “anti-abortion.”

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Partial Birth Abortion Cases This Week
Mon, Nov 6, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI — The day after the November 7th general elections, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of the 2003 federal ban on partial birth abortions in two cases: Gonzales v. Carhart, an appeal from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Nebraska, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, an appeal from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, submitted a friend of the court brief in the Carhart case supporting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s efforts to uphold the ban. Their brief was filed on behalf of the Law Center, the National Pro-Life Alliance, a nonpartisan coalition of over 600,000 pro-life Americans, and the Catholic League, the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization.

The 2003 law bans a particularly barbaric and gruesome abortion procedure used in the fifth or sixth month of pregnancy where the unborn child is removed from the mother’s womb except for the head. The doctor punctures the child’s head, sucks out the brains in order to collapse the skull, and then removes the dead child for the mother.
Immediately after the 2003 Act was signed into law, pro-abortion groups filed lawsuits in New York, San Francisco, and Lincoln, Nebraska. Lower courts and appellate courts found the ban unconstitutional in all three cases.

However, Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, is optimistic that the High Court will uphold the constitutionality of the ban because of the replacement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor with Samuel Alito. “I believe we will have Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy voting to uphold the ban. The Justices will give greater deference to the findings of Congress and will consider the prolonged and excruciating pain these unborn children experience during this horrific procedure.”

The Law Center’s brief exposes the rhetoric of the pro-abortion movement, which is designed to distract the public and the courts from the reality that each time an abortion is performed, a human life is destroyed. As medical science demonstrates, life begins at conception. Abortion advocates have tried to blur this reality in an attempt to sedate the public into believing that the atrocity of abortion is acceptable.

Edward L. White III, trial counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, explained, “The Supreme Court has the power to uphold the will of the people and stop the gruesome procedure known as partial-birth abortion. The Supreme Court should support the culture of life and reject the culture of death that is spreading across this nation.”

In 2000, the Supreme Court held state bans on partial birth abortions unconstitutional in the case of Stenberg v. Carhart. Justice Anthony Kennedy dissented in that case.
The 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act was passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives by wide margins. Congress had passed partial birth abortion bans twice before only to have President Clinton veto them.

Grave Danger that Michigan Will Become A Pro-Abortion State Once Roe Is Overturned
Wed, May 3, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – A detailed legal analysis prepared by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, exposes the grave weaknesses in Michigan’s currently existing law, concluding that the law is insufficient to guarantee a ban on abortions should Roe v. Wade be eventually overturned. The legal analysis points to the need for the Prenatal Child Protection Amendment to Michigan’s Constitution to protect all human life from the moment of conception.

Richard Thompson, the President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, earlier in the year had expressed deep concern that after Roe v. Wade was decided, the Michigan Supreme Court interpreted Michigan’s pre-Roe statutory abortion ban to include a broad health exception, and that court interpretation would continue to authorize abortions through all nine months of pregnancy after Roe was overturned.

The legal analysis prepared by Law Center attorney Robert Muise raises additional concerns, noting arguments that Michigan’s pre-Roe abortion ban was not enacted to protect the “rights” of the non-viable fetus, but to protect the pregnant woman, thus permitting those abortions “required to preserve the health of the mother.” Therefore, abortion advocates could argue based on current precedent that should Roe v. Wade be overturned, the law in Michigan would permit, at a minimum, first-term abortions performed by physicians for the health of the mother, which accounts for approximately 90% of the abortions performed in this country.

Furthermore, the Michigan Supreme Court has acknowledged a right of privacy in the Michigan Constitution that is at least the equivalent to the right found in the United States Constitution. It is the right of privacy that formed the basis for the federal constitutional right to abortion. As the legal analysis points out, Michigan’s Constitution is currently vulnerable to a finding of a state constitutional right to abortion absent the proposed amendment.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commenting on the legal analysis prepared by his office, stated, “Some in the pro-life movement have a Maginot line mentality, placing all their hopes on a pre-Roe statute that after Roe was construed by the Michigan Supreme court to include a broad heath exception and to exempt all abortions permitted by Roe. And just like the French who in World War II pinned their hopes on the static defense of the Maginot line only to find they were outflanked and had to surrender to the Nazis within weeks, so may the pro-lifers find only too late that their dependence on a pre-Roe statue that already allows abortions through all nine months of pregnancy gave them a false sense of security.”

Muise commented, “If Roe v. Wade is eventually overturned, the legal status of abortion in Michigan will be far from clear. In light of the inevitable arguments that abortion proponents will be advancing upon Roe’s reversal, the only prudent course of action is to adopt the Prenatal Child Protection Amendment. Of course, we know the arguments to make to counter those that will be advanced by the pro-abortionists, and surely we will make them when the opportunity presents itself, but why risk the lives of future unborn children if we can take action now to guarantee as much as our law can to protect innocent human life from the moment of conception.”

By their very nature constitutional provisions are general in their terms. In this case, acknowledging the personhood of pre-born children from the moment of conception gives them the same right to live as any other human being. And like every other human being, they would be entitled to equal protection under the law and could not be deprived of life without due process. But the Prenatal Child Protection Amendment is not a code of criminal law. The implementation of the guarantee of personhood would be up to the state legislature, just as the implementation of other provisions of Michigan’s Constitution. Nonetheless, it would correct the Roe v. Wade decision by restoring the personhood status of the pre-born child. Admittedly, all constitutional provisions are subject to interpretation by courts and thus no law is totally safe from judicial activism. However, placing these provisions in Michigan’s Constitution would give pre-born babies the greatest protection our laws can give.

The general provisions of the amendment take into consideration that no one can predict future attacks on pre-born children and the dignity of human life as a result of new and rapidly increasing scientific and technological progress. It seems that pharmaceutical companies in particular invest enormous sums of money and research resources to make killing the unborn child as easy as possible and without the need for medical assistance. This amendment will insure that regardless of the particular procedure or issue involved with these new technologies, there will always be the presumption that unborn children have the same right to life under our laws as any other person.

Moreover, the claim that Michigan already has an abortion ban is not an argument against the proposed amendment. Both can and must co-exist. A similar argument was made in 2004, during the petition drive to constitutionally define marriage. Homosexual advocacy groups, in an attempt to derail the petition drive, argued that Michigan already had a statute on the books defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Pro-family groups successfully responded that placing the definition of marriage in the constitution would offer greater legal protection to the institution of marriage, which could not be tampered with by temporarily shifting legislative majorities.

An argument advanced by opponents of the amendment is that the U.S. Supreme Court will soon revisit the issue of partial birth abortion and potentially the issue of Roe itself. Again, this is not an argument against supporting the proposed amendment.

Moreover, while all pro-lifers certainly hope the Court would take this opportunity to overturn Roe, it is rather unlikely that they will. The partial birth abortion ban is a ban on a particular abortion method. It is not a direct challenge to the right of abortion announced in Roe. Because a conservative court exercising judicial restraint will likely decide only those issues necessary for resolving the legal claims presented by the case, a challenge to the partial birth abortion ban does not offer a direct challenge to Roe. Similarly, Michigan’s Legal Birth Definition Act, which the Michigan Attorney General has interpreted as banning only the D&X procedure (partial birth abortion method), is not a direct challenge to Roe.

In comparison, a legal challenge to the proposed amendment would present to the courts a direct challenge to the central holding of Roe—that the unborn is not a person within the meaning of the law. This alone is sufficient reason for supporting the proposed amendment.

It is important to note that, contrary to the claims advanced by some detractors, the amendment would not restrict contraception in any way. Abortion is the taking of life while contraception is the prevention of life. The amendment does no more than guarantee the rights of personhood once life begins.

The petition drive to amend Michigan’s Constitution initiated by Michigan Citizens for Life has received a broad base of support. Those organizations supporting it include: Lutherans For Life, American Family Association of Michigan, Right to Life-Lifespan, American Life League, Eagle Forum of Michigan, Right to Life of Flint, Right to Life of Genesee County, the Michigan Republican Assembly, Michigan Chooses life, Thomas More Law Center, Christian Family Association, Michigan Conservative Union, Pastors Emergency League, and many more.

Certain pro-life organizations, such as the Michigan Catholic Conference, have yet to offer their support for this amendment. Their addition would certainly give a tremendous boost to the ultimate success of the petition drive. The demonstrable weaknesses in the current abortion law of Michigan and concomitant need for a constitutional amendment will hopefully sway these organizations to join forces in promoting the Prenatal Child Protection Amendment.

Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical letter, the Gospel of Life, made clear the fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church: “The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life.” And last month his successor, Pope Benedict XVI, reiterated, “[T]he Magisterium of the Church has constantly proclaimed the sacred and inviolable character of every human life, from its conception to natural end.”

Thomas More Law Center Agrees to Defend Michigan’s Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment
Mon, Mar 6, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that it supports and has agreed to defend the current citizen-initiated pro-life petition drive to amend the Michigan Constitution. The proposed amendment would provide that a person exists at the moment of conception for the purposes of statutes and the constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “The success of this petition drive is vitally important if we are to insure that Michigan becomes a pro-life state after Roe v. Wade is overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. That’s why all pro-lifers should support it. This Amendment would clear the ground of all issues dealing with interpretation of previous state precedent and statutes.”

Continued Thompson, “I am deeply disappointed that after 33 years and 45 million babies murdered, some in the pro-life movement still say the time is not right. If one truly believes a human being exists at the moment of conception and shortly thereafter suffers excruciating and prolonged pain while being sliced and torn apart in the mother’s womb, how would they not do everything they can to save that child—even though there is no guarantee of success. The extreme caution exhibited by some pro-lifers reminds me of what Lincoln said about his reluctant General McClellan during the Civil War: “he has “the slows,” too fearful of losing to risk winning.

Just last week, Pope Benedict XVI told a gathering of scientists and medical professionals that Catholic teaching proclaims life begins at conception. He said, “[T]he Magisterium of the Church has constantly proclaimed the sacred and inviolable character of every human life, from its conception to its natural end.”

Reverend Stephen T. Anthony, Superintendent of the Eastern Michigan District of the Church of the Nazarene, and chairman of Michigan Chooses Life, a newly formed inter-denominational group of prominent Michigan pastors supporting the petition drive had this to say, “It is a biological, medical, and spiritual fact that a new and precious human life begins every time a child is conceived in the womb.”

Over three months ago, Thompson met with leaders of Michigan Citizens for Life, the organization spearheading the petition drive, at the Law Center offices in Ann Arbor where he had an opportunity to review the petition language. As a result of that review, the Law Center agreed to represent the group in any future lawsuit challenging the amendment if adopted by Michigan voters. The ACLU has already stated it will file a lawsuit challenging the amendment if adopted by the voters.

The petition drive must turn in 317,000 valid signatures by July 10, 2006 in order for the Constitutional Amendment to be placed on the November 7th ballot.

Right To Life–Lifespan, as well as Michigan’s two Republican National Committee members, Chuck Yobb and Holly Hughes have already endorsed the petition drive.
Most legal analysts agree that if the pro-life justices on the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, they will merely rule that there is no federal constitutional right to an abortion, and return the abortion issue to the individual states.

Pro-abortion forces have already analyzed the legal implications in each state should Roe be overturned. They have also developed a state-by-state strategy where old pre-Roe anti-abortion statues have not been repealed or have been blocked by court order.

Michigan pro-life organizations have done an admirable and outstanding job within the constraints of Roe v. Wade; however, they must now prepare for the time when the shackles of Roe are removed. Michigan is one of several states that did not repeal its pre-Roe anti-abortion statute. But immediately after the Roe decision, the Michigan Supreme court interpreted the statute to track Roe, in effect allowing abortions throughout the nine months of pregnancy. Thus any attempt to enforce the old pre-Roe statutes after Roe is overturned will immediately be met with court challenges by pro-abortionists. This constitutional amendment will not only be the basis on which pro-life legislators can enact new laws prohibiting abortions, but it will also prevent future legislatures from enacting pro-abortion laws.

Moreover, pro-abortion lawyers have already devised an additional counter-measure to post–Roe situations. They will argue the concept of “implied repeal.” Under that doctrine they will attempt to show that subsequent acts of the legislature, such as regulating the abortion industry, are irreconcilably in conflict with a state’s previous ban, and thus the latest statute has repealed the earlier one by implication. Granted, this is a difficult argument to make, but nonetheless, one that pro-lifers will have to be ready to defend against.

Said Thompson, “We should not refrain from direct challenges to Roe v. Wade simply because some pro-life strategists caution “wait”—the Court is not ready. Directly challenging Roe does not mean we should abandon other pro-life legislative proposals aimed at chipping away at abortions. Nobody can know with any real certainty the ideal time to challenge any given decision. Under those circumstances all pro-life organizations, regardless of their opinion on a specific proposal, should work together in a spirit of unity. We should mount an assault on Roe from all directions.”

In another great human rights struggle Martin Luther King Jr. had to contend with the same “wait” argument that opposed his direct action in Birmingham, Alabama. In his famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail, he responded, “For years now I have heard the word ‘Wait!’ It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This ‘Wait’ has always meant ‘Never.’ We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that, ‘justice too long delayed is justice denied.’”

Just imagine what would be the response of the unborn child awaiting the cruel fate of abortion to the “Wait” argument?

Law Center Defends Michigan’s Ban on Partial Birth Abortions in the Federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
Tue, Feb 28, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI —The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed its opening brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in defense of Michigan’s ban on partial birth abortions. The Law Center is asking the court to overturn the lower court ruling, which struck down the ban and denied its prime sponsor, Standing Together To Oppose Partial-birth-abortion (“STTOP”), to intervene in the lawsuit.

The Act, known as the Michigan Legal Birth Definition Act, is a new approach that would ban the grisly partial birth abortion procedure by defining the moment when a human being is born and therefore a person under the law. It was proposed by initiative petition and signed by nearly 460,000 Michigan citizens, 200,000 more than needed.

Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling the matter, commented, “States have the right to draw the line between abortion and infanticide. The Legal Birth Definition Act defines the point at which a child is a person under the law and therefore entitled to rights, including the most basic right to life.”

In October 2003, Michigan’s pro-abortion Governor, Jennifer Granholm, vetoed a legislative ban on partial birth abortions. In response, Michigan citizens, through the efforts of STTOP, gathered the nearly 460,000 signatures to adopt the legislation without the governor’s approval. The Legal Birth Definition Act was subsequently passed by a simple majority vote in both the Michigan House and Senate. STTOP’s petition drive was one of the most successful petition drives in recent Michigan history.

On March 1, 2005, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood and other abortion proponents filed a lawsuit in federal court in Detroit, Michigan against the Michigan Attorney General and others, seeking to overturn the will of the people of Michigan, claiming that the Legal Birth Definition Act violates their right to have and perform abortions.

The Law Center sought to intervene in the federal case on behalf of STTOP, arguing that STTOP played a crucial role in enacting this citizen-initiated legislation and has a vested interest in upholding the constitutionality of this law, and further noting that STTOP represents the voice of the citizens of Michigan who have a substantial interest in the protection and preservation of human life.

In September 2005, federal judge, Denise Page Hood, a Clinton appointee, denied the Law Center’s request to intervene on behalf of STTOP and permanently enjoined the Act from taking effect. Judge Hood claimed, in part, that the ban placed “an undue burden on the woman’s right to reproductive choice” by banning “safe” abortion procedures. Both STTOP and the Attorney General appealed the judge’s ruling to the federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Ohio.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “The recent Ayotte decision by the United States Supreme Court and the Planned Parenthood v. Taft, decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals are clear evidence that the wall protecting abortions is beginning to crumble. If successful, our appeal will add a further crack to that wall.”

Supreme Court Grants Review of Partial-Birth Abortion Case
Tue, Feb 21, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI — In what may be the beginning of a new dawn for the pro-life movement in America, the United States Supreme Court today agreed to review the constitutionality of the Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003 in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, had submitted a friend of the court brief with the Supreme Court in October 2005 urging the court to review the case and supporting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s efforts to uphold the Congressional Act in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The federal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Nebraska had previously found the Act unconstitutional. Within the past few weeks, two other federal appellate courts, the Second Circuit in New York and the Ninth Circuit in California, also ruled the Act unconstitutional. In 2000, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, overturned bans against partial birth abortions in 30 states.

The Act bans the abortion procedure wherein an unborn baby, generally twenty weeks or longer in gestation, is removed from her mother’s womb, except for the head. The doctor punctures the child’s head, sucks out the child’s brains in order to collapse the skull, and then removes the dead child from the mother.

According to Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, “Partial-birth abortion is a gruesome and barbaric procedure, which must be stopped. Our goal is to overturn Roe v. Wade and to ban all abortions in the United States, regardless of the procedure used. This decision to hear the Gonzales appeal could be the great first step.”

The Thomas More Law Center is currently involved in several other pro-life initiatives, including defending the State of Michigan’s statute banning partial birth abortions, and a petition drive for a State constitutional amendment that defines a person as existing from the moment of conception and thus protected by the State’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The Thomas More Law Center was also involved in the 2004 South Dakota attempt to criminalize abortions and directly confront Roe v. Wade, which lost by one vote.

The Law Center will again submit a friend of the court brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold the constitutionality of the Act.

New York Federal Judge Says School Can’t Bar Student from Wearing a Pro-Life Shirt
Wed, Jan 11, 2006

Ann Arbor, MI — A high school principal’s decision prohibiting a student from wearing his pro-life shirt in school has been overturned by a federal district court. Judge Elfvin of the Western District of New York signed a permanent injunction ordering Fillmore Central High School located in Fillmore, New York to allow the student to wear his pro-life shirt to school. The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, represented the student.

Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, stated: “This student courageously took a stand for his views and our constitution. The ruling is clear–public schools don’t have the right to silence the pro-life speech of students.”

The student’s shirt is distributed by the American Life League’s Rock for Life group and displayed the following message: “Abortion is Homicide. You will not silence my message. You will not mock my God. You will stop killing my generation. Rock for Life.” Fillmore Principal Kyle Faulkner told the student that he could not wear his shirt in school. The student was sent home for the day when he respectfully replied that he had a right to wear the shirt. The student then contacted the Thomas More Law Center.

The Law Center attempted to amicably resolve the dispute by sending a letter to school officials explaining that students have a First Amendment right to peacefully express their views at school. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that students do not shed their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate. However, after school officials refused to acknowledge the student’s right to free speech, the Thomas More Law Center filed a lawsuit against his school for forcing him to remove his pro-life shirt and barring his free-speech rights.

The Thomas More Law Center was assisted by Chris Ferrara, of the American Catholic Lawyers Association, who acted as local counsel.

On September 6th, Judge Elfvin issued a preliminary injunction ruling that the student’s First Amendment rights had been violated, and ordered the school to allow him to wear his pro-life shirt to school until the lawsuit was resolved.

This past December, Judge Elfvin permanently ordered the school to allow the student to wear clothing in school that expresses his pro-life message. The judge also ordered the school district to pay the student nominal damages. The judge awarded a total of $24,600 in attorneys’ fees to the two law firms.

Julie Shotzbarger, Trial Counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, who handled the case, commented, “Students at Fillmore were allowed to wear all manner of shirts, including rock band shirts depicting bloody skulls, and shirts promoting sex, yet this public school singled out our client to silence his peaceful pro-life message.”